4.7 Article

Was GW190412 Born from a Hierarchical 3+1 Quadruple Configuration?

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 898, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9b27

关键词

Black hole physics; Gravitational wave sources

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [AST-1440254]
  2. Max Planck Society through a Max Planck Research Group

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The gravitational wave source GW190412 is a binary black hole (BBH) merger with three unique properties: (i) its mass ratio is about 0.28, the lowest found so far, (ii) it has a relatively high positive effective spin parameter chi(eff) = 0.25, and (iii) it is observed to be precessing due to in-plane projected spin of the binary with an in-plane precession parameter chi(p) = 0.3. The two main formation channels of BBH formation fail to account for GW190412: field formation scenarios cannot explain the observed precession unless by invoking large natal kicks, and dynamical assembly in dense stellar systems is inefficient in producing such low- mass-ratio BBH mergers. Here, we investigate whether double mergers in wide hierarchical quadruple systems in the 3.+. 1 configuration could explain the unique properties of GW190412. In this scenario, a compact object quadruple system experiences two mergers: first, two compact objects in the innermost orbit merge due to secular chaotic evolution. At a later time, the merged compact object coalesces with another compact object due to secular Lidov-Kozai oscillations. We find that our scenario is consistent with GW190412. In particular, we find a preferential projected spin around chi(p) = 0.2. However, the likelihood of a double merger is small and the formation efficiency of these systems is uncertain. If GW190412 originated from a double merger in a 3.+.1 quadruple, we find a strong constraint that the first merger likely occurred between roughly equal-mass BHs in the innermost orbit, since the recoil velocity from unequal-mass BHs would otherwise have disrupted the system.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据